Skip to content Skip to main navigation
Site map Arabic Urdu Slovenian Farsi Chinese French

Agenda and minutes

Planning Board
Thursday, 15th December, 2011 9.00 a.m.

Venue: Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham. S60 2TH

Contact: Debbie Bacon, Senior Democratic Services Officer. 

Items
No. Item

79.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 67 KB

(A form is attached and spares will be available at the meeting)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors Pitchley and Smith declared a personal interest in application RB2011/1451 (details of the erection of a building to form an industrial unit with associated offices (reserved at outline RB2009/1119 at the former Laycast Site, Sheffield Road, Fence) on the grounds that the application had been discussed at Aston-cum-Aughton Parish Council, but neither Councillor had been party to the discussion.

80.

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board held on 24th November, 2011 pdf icon PDF 45 KB

Minutes:

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board held on 24th November, 2011, be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

81.

Deferments/Site Visits pdf icon PDF 26 KB

Minutes:

That application RB2011/1511 be deferred, requested by Councillor G. A. Russell and Councillor Hughes (Ward Member) to allow Members to consider the numerous concerns and view these on site before coming to a decision and that consideration be given to a visit of inspection and that the Director of Planning and Regeneration, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Board, approve the arrangements.

82.

Development Proposals pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Minutes:

Resolved:- (1) That, on the development proposals now considered the requisite notices be issued and be made available on the Council’s website and that the time limits specified in Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 apply.

 

In accordance with the right to speak procedures, the following people attended the meeting and spoke about the applications below:-

 

-        Erection of 369 No. dwellinghouses and associated garages including formation of new access points, public open space and landscaping works at land off Laughton Road/Sawn Moor Road, Thurcroft for Barratt Homes Yorkshire West. (RB2011/1244)

 

         Mr. J. Hobson (on behalf of the Applicant)

         Mr. N. Roberts (Objector – statement read out on his behalf)

 

-        Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 No. detached dwellinghouses at 3 Main Street, Ulley for Mr. J. Monaghan (RB2011/1524)

 

         Mr. J. Monaghan (Applicant)

 

-        Erection of 3 No. dwellings at Rackford Farm, Rackford Road, North Anston for G Sanders (Builder) Ltd. (RB2011/1546)

 

         Mr. M. Davies (Applicant)

 

(2)  That the Council and the developer enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act for the purposes of securing the requisite affordable housing units, maintenance and management of the green space provision and the commuted sums as set out in the report and subject to the agreement being signed application RB2011/1244 be granted for the reasons adopted by Members at the meeting and subject to the relevant conditions listed in the report.  Issues raised in a late letter of objection from a nearby resident were presented to Members and additional comments from a resident who could not exercise his Right to Speak were read out at the meeting.

 

(3)  That applications RB2011/1451, RB2011/1495, RB2011/1524 and RB2011/1546 be granted for the reasons adopted by Members at the meeting and subject to the relevant conditions listed in the report.   With regard to RB2011/1495, a letter would also be submitted to the applicant outlining the concerns expressed by the Planning Board with regards to the non-compliance with a Condition on a previous permission on the site relating to the erection of an acoustic fence, and that this would be pursued by officers.

 

(4)  That application RB2011/1511 be deferred, requested by Councillor G. A. Russell and Councillor Hughes (Ward Member) to allow Members to consider the numerous concerns and view these on site before coming to a decision and that consideration be given to a visit of inspection and that the Director of Planning and Regeneration, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Board, approve the arrangements.

 

(5)  That application RB2011/1595 has been withdrawn by the applicant.

83.

Appeal Decision - Against the refusal of a retrospective application for erection of wall/fence to front and side at No. 99 Warren Vale Road, Swinton, Mexborough (RB2011/0882) pdf icon PDF 330 KB

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed an appeal against the refusal of retrospective permission for erection of wall/fence to front and side at No. 99 Warren Vale Road, Swinton, Mexborough.

 

The Inspector dealing with the appeal was of the view that the proposal as a whole would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. This would conflict with the purposes of saved Policy ENV3.1 in the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan and the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Householder Development. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

 

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the applicant had been advised by the Planning Officer of an alternative proposal for the re-submission of a planning application, incorporating railings as opposed to a solid fence, which was considered would be acceptable. The appellant had also been informed that if they did not chose this option they should comply with the Enforcement Notice as soon as possible (as the compliance period had already expired).  Officers would continue to monitor the situation.

 

Resolved:-  That the decision to dismiss the appeal be noted.

84.

Appeal Decision - Against refusal of planning permission for single storey side extension and attached garage at 1 Oates Street, Thornhill (RB2011/0905)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for single storey side extension and attached garage at 1 Oates Street, Thornhill.

 

The Inspector dealing with the appeal dismissed it and noted that the existing house, like many in the immediate vicinity, was not especially large and of an uncomplicated form and straightforward design.  The proposed addition would be of a quite significant area, though single-storey, parts of its would be quite high, largely as a result of the change in land levels.  The Inspector was of the opinion that the addition would be of some size in relation to the host property.

 

The Inspector stated that notwithstanding the materials proposed, the angled projection of the extension would lend it a rather awkward appearance.  The convoluted roof arrangement would add to this and it would appear as a contrived addition to the house and because of this, and its size, the Inspector indicated the extension would be a dominant feature that would look out of place.  Furthermore, given its proximity to Mount Street and the public footpath, it would be prominent in this street scene and would detract from it.

 

The Inspector, therefore, concluded that the proposed extension would harm the character and appearance of both the existing house and surrounding area.  The Inspector stated that it would conflict with the aims of Policy ENV3.1 of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan, which requires development to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality and scale, among other things.

 

The Inspector also noted that at present the appeal plot included a turning area for vehicles, it was tight, and turning a vehicle on it is likely to involve considerable manoeuvring back and forth.  However, the Inspector states it as probable that some drivers would choose to undertake such manoeuvres, while the alternative of negotiating the sloping driveway access and the section of Mount Street in reverse gear also presented significant difficulties, particularly given the likelihood of pedestrians being present.

 

Despite the size of the house, it did have three bedrooms, and the Inspector believed it reasonable to suppose its occupiers would have more than one car between them.  With one car parked on the driveway, a second could not realistically be turned within the site. The Inspector stated that, overall, it was probable that the current arrangements gave rise to vehicles reversing along the section of highway used by pedestrians, which was far from ideal.

 

Nevertheless, the Inspector noted the proposed extension would be built on the turning area.  The current opportunity for turning within the site would be lost.  As such, it was likely that the scheme would result in an increase in the number of reversing movements along the shared surface.  In the Inspector’s opinion, this would worsen the current level of risk posed to pedestrians along the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

85.

Appeal Decision - Against refusal of planning permission for a single and two storey front extension at 101 Scrooby Street, Greasbrough (RB2011/0992)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a single and two storey front extension at 101 Scrooby Street, Greasbrough.

 

The Inspector dealing with the appeal stated that “the appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling which, with its neighbours, presents a regular pattern of buildings in the street scene. Like its neighbours to the east it is set back from the footway behind a low hedge so that the proposed extension would be visible in the street scene, despite the property being lower than the footway and the dwellings opposite. Several properties in the road have been extended at the front by single storey extensions but these are not intrusive in the street scene and do not affect roof profiles. None of the dwellings on the same side as the appeal property have had 2-storey extensions although there are 3 opposite where such development exists. Two of these are shallow 2-storey projections more in the form of bay windows. The other at No. 52 Scrooby Street is similar to the appeal proposal. However, it is not the form of development that I consider should be repeated as it is incompatible with the context provided by the other dwellings in the area and would be harmful to the street scene. In any event I have considered this appeal on its own merits.”

 

The Inspector considered that the low hipped roof on the projecting part of the front elevation would be inconsistent with the simple hipped roof form of other properties in the road which would be contrary to Policy ENV3.1 that had the objectives of ensuring development has regard to architectural style and local vernacular characteristics and making a positive contribution to the character of an area.  In addition the Inspector did not consider that the proposal reflected the architectural features of the existing house in conflict with Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance,’ Housing Guidance-Householder Development’ (SPG) which stated that 2-storey front extensions were normally allowed up to 2.0m deep but they must be must be modest in scale and preserve and reflect the architectural features of the existing house.

 

The Inspector concluded that the proposal would unbalance the appearance of the pair of semi-detached properties as a single structure and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing building and the street scene which would be in conflict with the objectives of UDP Policy ENV3.1 and the SPG.

 

Resolved:-  That the decision to dismiss the appeal be noted.

86.

Updates

Minutes:

Councillor G. A. Russell made reference to the development that took place on Brecks Lane relating to the raising and farming of sheep and the concerns she had received regarding activity at this site.

 

The Planning Manager noted the concerns and would report back to the people concerned.